Bills: SB683, SB1579, SB1389, SB1387, SB1390, SB1391, SB2063, SB1829, SB2060, SB1842, SB1398, SB1212, SB2158, SB102, SB1772, SB1958, SB2010, SB1595, SB1687, SB1684, SB2049, SB1966, SB1989, SB1191, SB1258, SB1920, SB1936, SB2143, SB2122, SB330, SB2071, SB2169, SB2069, SB2095, SB2157, SB1806, SB1430, SB206, SB1547, SB1849, SB1428, SB1653, SB1984, SB1644, SB1561, SB1813, SB1570, SB1796

Keywords: education, tax credit, student support, private school, Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit, financial assistance, homeschooling, qualified expenses, property tax, valuation increase, taxpayer rights, homestead, protest process, school choice, tuition assistance, income limits, parental choice, accreditation, sales tax, motor vehicles

Transcript Highlights:

• The net acquisition cost subtracts out any rebates or discounts the manufacturers make available to health

Bills: HB591, HB765, HB826, HB870, HB938, HB1151, HB1162, HB1176, HB1196, HB1236, HB1241

Keywords: family leave, insurance, paid leave, employment benefits, caregiver support, liability insurance, coverage defenses, direct action, judgment enforcement, legal procedures, insurance referrals, compensation, non-licensed agents, consumer protection, insurance products, HB 870, Act 907, Louisiana insurance, health insurance, prescription drugs

Transcript Highlights:

• And when we discuss core funds, we subtract funds that were not spent on campus operations.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, chaired by Assemblymember Alvarez, held a hearing focused on University of California budget issues. The committee reviewed UC core operations funding, enrollment trends, federal funding threats, Title IX implementation, and basic needs support. Major themes included the end of the Governor’s multi-year UC compact, the state’s fiscal outlook, UC’s enrollment growth, and the potential impacts of federal policy changes on research, health care, and student aid. On core funding, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to continue compact-related support, defer some payments, and authorize a cash-flow loan. The LAO recommended a smaller or no base increase, earmarking some funds for capital renewal, retiring deferrals when possible, avoiding new compact commitments, and funding UC annually rather than through compacts. UC argued that the compact has supported enrollment growth, student services, and operating costs, but said campuses face rising expenses, structural deficits, and limited reserves. Members questioned the effects of deferrals on students and discussed the need to prioritize less harmful reductions if cuts become necessary. The enrollment panel focused on UC’s growth in California resident enrollment and the nonresident replacement plan at Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego. The LAO recommended maintaining the current enrollment target, funding enrollment separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident replacement plan, and holding enrollment flat in 2027-28. UC said it has already met compact enrollment goals, grown California undergraduate enrollment by about 18,800 students, and that further growth depends on ongoing state support. The committee also discussed the cost of enrollment growth, possible differential nonresident tuition, and a reporting request for UC to analyze the nonresident replacement approach; the motion to adopt supplemental reporting language passed. The hearing also covered federal funding risks, with the LAO and UC warning that federal changes could affect research grants, medical center reimbursement, and student financial aid. UC said research cancellations and suspensions are disrupting labs and graduate student support, while federal health policy changes could increase uncompensated care at UC hospitals. In the Title IX update, UC described its systemwide civil rights structure, annual student training, and campus support offices, and members praised the work while asking about ongoing concerns and intersegmental collaboration. The final basic-needs item began with Finance stating the Governor’s budget does not change ongoing support, but the transcript cuts off before further discussion or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• . to allow designations to essentially carry over their physical demand a physical availability subtracting

Bills: HB2026, HB2027, HB2028, HB2031, HB2078, HB2094, HB2095, HB2101, HB2102, HB2103, HB2260, HB2278, HB2827, HB2932, HB2933, HB2934, HB2986, HCM2009, HCR2038

Keywords: assured water supply, groundwater, commingling, commingled water, water supply, Arizona Department of Water Resources, ADWR, active management area, AMA, subdivision plat, development approval, water rights, municipal provider, private water company, certificate of assured water supply, written commitment of water service, groundwater savings credits, gray water reuse, replenishment district, Central Arizona Project

Summary: The committee on Natural Resources, Energy and Water heard and advanced several bills and memorials focused on water policy, mining, environmental regulation, and professional licensing. HB 2260, a veterinary board measure, HB 2986, an ADEQ cleanup/omnibus bill, and HB 2827, which extends Pinal AMA groundwater fee authority and related fund deadlines, all received due pass recommendations on unanimous 10-0 votes. HB 2078, clarifying that public notice for new aggregate mine reclamation plans applies only to new plans and can be satisfied by certain local notices, also passed 9-1 after testimony from the sponsor and mining industry representatives. HCM 2009, urging Congress to amend the Antiquities Act, address split estate mineral rights, and streamline mining permits, passed 5-4 along party lines and drew support from mining interests and opposition from members concerned about federal land protection and monuments. HCR 2038, supporting a seven-state Colorado River agreement, passed 9-1 with testimony emphasizing the importance of a negotiated river settlement to Arizona’s economy, food supply, and national security. The committee then took up a series of water-management bills that generated more extensive debate. HB 2026, which narrows how ADWR evaluates water availability by focusing on proposed dedicated supplies even if commingled in delivery systems, passed 6-4 despite concerns that it echoed previously vetoed language and could weaken water security. HB 2027, as amended, would limit application of Pinal AMA-style rules in the Phoenix AMA and alter physical-availability review for applicants enrolled in the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District; it passed 6-4 after strong opposition from CAP, municipal water users, and ADWR, who warned it could undermine assured water supply designations and CAGRD obligations, while home builders argued it was a fairness issue for development. HB 2028, removing ADWR’s exemption from appealable administrative-completeness determinations, passed 6-4 over agency concerns that it would turn deficiency letters into formal appeals and add workload, while supporters said it would give applicants the same legal rights as other regulated parties. The committee also approved HB 2031, an emergency measure setting a deadline for filing grandfathered groundwater rights in the Wilcox AMA, on a 5-4 vote, and HB 2094, which would require ADWR to re-review certain assured water supply determinations and retroactively validate some applications using specified models, also on a 5-4 vote; both were described as similar to previously vetoed measures. The transcript ends as the committee begins HB 2095, which would expand the factors ADWR considers in determining groundwater depth and physical availability for assured water supply applications, with an amendment being explained but no final action captured in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• He was, you know, You can subtract the numbers to see how old he was—about 13 or 14 years old—when I

Transcript Highlights:

• So your understanding of the law, does the Attorney General have the ability to add or subtract things

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 5695, which would create the Sayers Ranch Municipal Utility District in Bastrop County between Elgin and Bastrop. Representative Gurdis said Bastrop County commissioners unanimously supported the district. There was no public testimony, the bill was left pending, and later reported favorably to the full House on an 8-0 vote. The main debate centered on Senate Bill 291, which would require condemning entities to pay landowner attorney’s fees if they fail to provide 10 years of appraisal reports with an initial offer in an eminent domain case. Supporters, including Rita Beving and Charles Maley, argued the bill would add an enforcement mechanism and better protect landowners in a process they described as intimidating and lopsided. Opponents, including Tom Zabel and Lisa Kaufman, said current law already provides a remedy through abatement and attorney’s fees under Section 21.047 of the Property Code, and warned the bill could create inconsistency, delay public infrastructure projects, and increase costs. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 5699, a simple MUD boundary change in Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 405 that would allow a tract to leave one district and join another. Representative Schofield said the landowner and district agreed to the change and to pay the tract’s share of debt. The committee substitute was adopted and the bill was reported favorably on an 8-0 vote. Later, the committee considered House Bill 5489, which would impose a four-year moratorium on impact fees. Representative Dyson framed it as an “active study” to test whether impact fees raise housing costs. College Station officials and other opponents argued impact fees help fund infrastructure for growth and that local governments should retain control; supporters said the fees are regressive and add to housing prices. The bill was left pending. The committee then heard Senate Bill 292, which would update the Landowner Bill of Rights to add information on surveys, require separate offers for property not sought in condemnation, and require the rights document to be delivered with the initial offer. Supporters said it would improve transparency and fill gaps in the current document, while opponents said it was unnecessary because the law already exists and warned against revisiting a 2021 compromise. The transcript ends during that discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• meeting their housing goals, and to know how far they're moving forward, you also have to be able to subtract

Summary: The committee heard a long agenda of housing-related bills, beginning with AB 249, which would require youth-specific coordinated entry assessments for homeless services. The author and supporters from Larkin Street Youth Services and the California Coalition for Youth argued that current vulnerability tools are adult-focused and can disadvantage young people; the bill was described as a developmentally appropriate fix to better connect youth to housing and prevention services. There was no opposition, and the bill passed 7-0 to Human Services. Members then heard AB 239 and AB 1206. AB 239 would create a state-led disaster housing task force, a state disaster housing coordinator, and regular legislative reporting to speed recovery after disasters; it passed 7-0 to Emergency Management. AB 1206 would let local agencies pre-approve plans for single-family and small multifamily homes of up to 10 units to reduce permitting delays and costs; the League of California Cities opposed it unless amended, citing local variation and staffing concerns, but the author and supporters said it would preserve local control and help speed housing production. The bill passed 9-0 to Local Government. The committee also took up AB 57, which would reserve at least 10% of California’s home purchase assistance funds for descendants of formerly enslaved people. Supporters framed it as reparative justice and a way to address longstanding racial disparities in homeownership, while Pacific Legal Foundation argued it likely violated constitutional limits on race-based government action and urged a race-neutral approach. After discussion about reparations criteria and the bill’s intent, it passed 6-0 to Judiciary. The consent calendar, including AB 480, AB 726, and AB 1154, was approved 8-0. Later, AB 282 was heard to allow housing providers to prefer applicants who participate in rental assistance programs, such as Housing Choice Vouchers, despite existing source-of-income discrimination law. Supporters said it would help voucher holders find units and improve affordable housing operations; no opposition testified, and the bill passed 6-1 to Judiciary. AB 1229 followed, restructuring the adult reentry grant program to focus on permanent housing for people leaving prison by moving administration to HCD and using regional administrators; supporters emphasized the link between housing stability and reduced recidivism, and the bill passed 7-0 to Public Safety. The committee then approved AB 670, which would let local governments count preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing toward housing element goals and require better demolition reporting, and AB 750, which would strengthen oversight and reporting for homeless shelters after a prior reporting law saw very low compliance. AB 670 passed 8-0 to Local Government, and AB 750 was presented with testimony from a shelter resident describing abuse and lack of accountability in shelters.

Transcript Highlights:

• What's being subtracted, what are the changes happening to that line.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that money subtracted? Was that included in the 2.4 billion?

Transcript Highlights:

• socialize, and these days I think we're pushing kids further and further to learn addition, possibly subtraction
• socialize, and these days I think we're pushing kids further and further to learn addition, possibly subtraction
• and further to learn right addition and further to learn right addition possibly<00:43:17.480> subtraction
• /c><00:43:17.920> in<00:43:18.040> kindergarten<00:43:18.640> and possibly subtraction
• in kindergarten and possibly subtraction in kindergarten and reading<00:43:19.920> um<00:43:20.920

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first addressed House Bill 415, which would remove the requirement that schools provide menstrual products. Members supporting an ITL said the mandate was unfunded, had been in place since 2019, and was already working without complaints from districts. Other members opposed the bill, arguing menstrual products are essential and that the requirement helps students, especially those with fewer resources. The committee voted ITL on HB 415 by a roll call of 17 yeas, 0 nays. The committee then took up House Bill 388, concerning public reports on special education. Supporters of ITL said they agreed with the goal of transparency but were concerned about student privacy, especially in small districts, and thought the bill’s information requests went too far. They noted that related issues could potentially be addressed in another bill, HB 557. The committee voted ITL on HB 388, 17-0. House Bill 730, which would require schools and some colleges to provide information on adoption, was also moved ITL. The sponsor said adoption is personally important to him but that the bill was not the right vehicle and involved entities such as colleges and the Attorney General unnecessarily; he said related ideas might be folded into other bills later. The committee agreed and voted ITL, 17-0. The committee then discussed House Bill 671, a preschool/early literacy proposal involving a statewide nonprofit digital program, likely Waterford. Members raised questions about who would be covered, data privacy, prior use of federal ESSER funds, whether the program had measurable results, and whether the bill’s nonprofit requirement was too restrictive. Department of Education witness Melissa White said the state had spent $400,000 in FY22 and $600,000 in FY23 on a Waterford contract using ARP ESSER funds, but she did not have participant counts and said the department could not measure literacy gains for that population. She also said the bill’s funding level would likely require an RFP and that, if enacted as written, the program would probably still be Waterford-based. The discussion continued without a final vote in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The child care deduction is a subtraction from income, correct?
• Not a dollar-for-dollar subtraction from your taxes. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Livingston?

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When you subtract that sum from the $3.7 billion beginning balance, we're left with what you see in the
• When we take a step back, when we subtract total forecast spending in the planning biennium from expected

Bills: HF3425

Keywords: supportive housing, grants, housing assistance, funding, Minnesota Statutes, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• What so, but of course that's not, you know, you can't just subtract that off because that's not the
• You know, you can't just subtract that off because that's not the way markets work.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committees first took up SB 3322 relating to law enforcement. Chairs recommended adopting amendments from the Department of Law Enforcement that would exempt plainclothes officers from identification requirements, limit conspicuous agency markings to vehicles used in immigration enforcement operations, and allow a plainclothes officer to wear a mask when within eyesight of an unmasked officer from the same agency while performing official duties. Although there was an initial quorum issue, both committees ultimately voted to adopt the chair’s recommendation and advance the bill as amended. The next major item was SB 3333 relating to property tax treatment for certain housing. Testimony was strongly supportive, including from a Maui County real property tax board member and a representative of Nali Maui, who described homeowners in affordable housing being taxed at much higher rates when exemptions were missed or when resale restrictions kept values below market. The committees recommended passing the bill with amendments, including a deferred effective date of April 19, 2042, and the recommendation was adopted. The committees also heard SB 2422 on a pro housing score program for counties, SB 2981 on eliminating minimum off-street parking requirements in urban districts, SB 2007 on county land use boundary amendments, SB 3028 on restructuring the conveyance tax to a marginal rate system, SB 3033 on public petitions for review of beach structures, and SB 2434 on electric vehicle infrastructure. SB 2422 drew support with a request for flexibility and an appeals process for counties facing extraordinary circumstances; the chair’s recommendation was to pass it with amendments and note a $200,000 implementation study request, which was adopted. SB 2981 received strong support from housing and transportation advocates and was advanced unamended, while SB 2007 drew opposition from the Sierra Club and discussion about the Land Use Commission’s limited enforcement tools and the number of approved but unbuilt units. SB 3028 received mixed testimony, with support for the marginal-rate change but concerns about earmarking and blanks in the bill, and SB 3033 was supported as an early-warning mechanism for erosion-threatened coastal structures, though OPSD said it should not be the regulatory decision-maker. SB 2434 prompted concern about whether utility capacity can support EV infrastructure goals, with the chair citing a recent report suggesting transmission and distribution constraints.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's nothing that's being kind of subtracted from the numbers that are currently being reported under
• other words, it's not being, the amount. that we're getting paid in for that care is not being subtracted

Bills: HB5141, HB4638, HB2264, HB2035, HB4813, HB4408, HB2684, HB1621, HB2300, HB216, HB3829, HB4466, HB1747, HB2284, HB3614, HB2587, HB3219, HB3318, HB5147, HB4014, HB216

Keywords: lease, state property, public purpose, Travis County, Health and Human Services, pharmaceutical initiative, drug distribution, healthcare services, generic drugs, advanced pharmaceuticals, cost savings, mental health, patient discharge, medical records, health care professionals, substance use, family involvement, chemical dependency, treatment facilities, minor admissions

Transcript Highlights:

• Some sellers may not report individual deductions and subtract the tax-exempt amounts from the reported

Summary: The committee met on July 15, 2026, but initially lacked a quorum, so it could not adopt prior minutes. Chair Jerry Pollett welcomed new member Senator Victoria Hunt and new JLARC staff, and noted national recognition for recent JLARC reports. The meeting then moved into a series of preliminary audit presentations and an agency strategic management update, with committee members asking questions after each item. JLARC presented a preliminary audit of DCYF’s Juvenile Rehabilitation programs. Staff concluded that crowding, staffing shortages, weak risk assessments, and inconsistent programming combine to create unsafe conditions. The report found that most youth are housed in two large secure facilities operating near or above capacity, incidents rise as population rises, 47% of frontline staff leave within a year, current assessment tools are not valid for the population, and program access depends more on facility than individual need. JLARC made one recommendation to the legislature to address crowding and seven to DCYF, including improving retention, training, incident response procedures, validated assessments, program alignment, and data quality. DCYF Secretary Ross Hunter said the agency agreed overcrowding is a serious problem, described ongoing efforts to improve staffing and safety, and said a detailed response would be provided later. Committee members raised concerns about education access, retaliation against staff or youth who participated in the audit, and whether JR-25 has helped or worsened conditions. JLARC then presented a preliminary audit of Labor and Industries’ enforcement of farm worker labor laws. The audit found that L&I generally meets inspection timelines for health and safety complaints, but not for wage and hour or retaliation complaints, where delays are driven largely by time before assignment to an investigator. Staff said complaint volume exceeds capacity, though the agency has added staff, created screening processes, and reorganized workloads, and 2026 legislation now allows prioritization of complaints and broader investigations. JLARC recommended that L&I report back in December 2026 and December 2027 on backlog reduction and implementation of the new law. An L&I representative said the agency is hiring additional staff and will provide a formal response later. The committee also received a JLARC overview and Department of Health strategic management plan update on hospital data reporting, inspections, complaints, and adverse event reporting. DOH reported measurable progress on inspection compliance, new staffing and licensing systems, translated complaint forms, and plans for future work on language access, adverse event reporting, and financial data dashboards. After lunch, JLARC began its 2026 tax preference performance reviews. The first review covered the Main Street tax credit, which JLARC said has helped increase the number of Main Street communities and businesses, with positive growth near designated districts; JLARC recommended continuing the preference and improving business-count data. The second review covered the equitable access to credit program, which JLARC said appears to support underserved communities by funding loans through CDFIs; JLARC recommended continuing the preference beyond its 2027 expiration. The committee began questions on the program mechanics and the role of the Community Reinvestment Act, and the presentation was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are subtracted before the computations are made.

Bills: HB0034, HB0035, HB0036, HB0106

Keywords: HB0034, Wyoming retirement system, Wyoming Retirement Act, firefighter retirement, public employee retirement, retirement benefits, state pension, wildland firefighting, wildland firefighter, crash and rescue, Wyoming National Guard, Office of State Lands and Investments, Wyoming Retirement Board, correctional forestry crew, correctional crew supervisor, correctional forestry crew manager, general fund appropriation, state agency employees, service credit, benefit eligibility

Transcript Highlights:

• governor we're going to a hundred and four thousand which means you take your appraised value and you subtract

Bills: SJR2, SB4, SJR36, SJR2, SB4, SJR1, SJR5, SB9, SB40, SJR2, SB4, SR98, SJR40, SJR41, SJR42, SJR43, SJR44, SJR45, SJR46, SJR47, SCR13, SB6, SB13, SB21, SB826, SB827, SB828, SB829, SB830, SB831, SB832, SB833, SB834, SB835, SB836, SB837, SB838, SB839, SB840, SB841, SB842, SB843, SB844, SB845, SB846, SB847, SB848, SB849, SB850, SB851, SB853, SB854, SB855, SB856, SB857, SB858, SB859, SB860, SB861, SB862, SB863, SB864, SB865, SB866, SB867, SB868, SB869, SB870, SB871, SB872, SB873, SB874, SB875, SB876, SB877, SB878, SB879, SB880, SB881, SB882, SB883, SB884, SB885, SB886, SB887, SB888, SB889, SB890, SB891, SB892, SB893, SB894, SB895, SB896, SB897, SB898, SB899, SB900, SB901, SB902, SB903, SB904, SB905, SB906, SB907, SB908, SB909, SB910, SB911, SB912, SB913, SB914, SB915, SB916, SB917, SB918, SB919, SB920, SB921, SB922, SB923, SB924, SB925, SB926, SB927, SB928, SB929, SB930, SB931, SB932, SB933, SB934, SB935, SB936, SB937, SB938, SB939, SB940, SB941, SB942, SB943, SB944, SB945, SB946, SB947, SB948, SB949, SB950, SB951, SB952, SB953, SB954, SB955, SB956, SB957, SB958, SB959, SB960, SB961, SB962, SB963, SB964, SB965, SB966, SB967, SB968, SB969, SB970, SB971, SB972, SB973, SB974, SB975, SB976, SB977, SB978, SB979, SB980, SB981, SB982, SB983, SB984, SB985, SB986, SB987, SB988, SB989, SB990, SB991, SB992, SB993, SB994, SB995, SB996, SB997, SB998, SB999, SB1000, SJR40, SJR41, SJR42, SJR43, SJR44, SJR45, SJR46, SJR47, SCR13, SB6, SB13, SB21, SB826, SB827, SB828, SB829, SB830, SB831, SB832, SB833, SB834, SB835, SB836, SB837, SB838, SB839, SB840, SB841, SB842, SB843, SB844, SB845, SB846, SB847, SB848, SB849, SB850, SB851, SB853, SB854, SB855, SB856, SB857, SB858, SB859, SB860, SB861, SB862, SB863, SB864, SB865, SB866, SB867, SB868, SB869, SB870, SB871, SB872, SB873, SB874, SB875, SB876, SB877, SB878, SB879, SB880, SB881, SB882, SB883, SB884, SB885, SB886, SB887, SB888, SB889, SB890, SB891, SB892, SB893, SB894, SB895, SB896, SB897, SB898, SB899, SB900, SB901, SB902, SB903, SB904, SB905, SB906, SB907, SB908, SB909, SB910, SB911, SB912, SB913, SB914, SB915, SB916, SB917, SB918, SB919, SB920, SB921, SB922, SB923, SB924, SB925, SB926, SB927, SB928, SB929, SB930, SB931, SB932, SB933, SB934, SB935, SB936, SB937, SB938, SB939, SB940, SB941, SB942, SB943, SB944, SB945, SB946, SB947, SB948, SB949, SB950, SB951, SB952, SB953, SB954, SB955, SB956, SB957, SB958, SB959, SB960, SB961, SB962, SB963, SB964, SB965, SB966, SB967, SB968, SB969, SB970, SB971, SB972, SB973, SB974, SB975, SB976, SB977, SB978, SB979, SB980, SB981, SB982, SB983, SB984, SB985, SB986, SB987, SB988, SB989, SB990, SB991, SB992, SB993, SB994, SB995, SB996, SB997, SB998, SB999, SB1000

Keywords: SJR 2, Senate Joint Resolution 2, constitutional amendment, homestead exemption, property tax relief, school property tax, ad valorem tax, residence homestead, school district taxes, Texas Constitution Article VIII, public school finance, homeowner exemption, elderly exemption, senior tax relief, disabled exemption, tax year 2025, voter approval, November 2025 ballot, local government, Ways & Means

Transcript Highlights:

• Then I run my regression analysis and I do my forecast, and then I subtract the tax mod back to the alpha
• forecast<01:17:08.719> and<01:17:08.880> then<01:17:09.040> I<01:17:09.280> subtract
• and I do my forecast and then I subtract and I do my forecast and then I subtract the<01:17:10.000

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The meeting focused on preliminary fiscal 2026 revenue estimates and the governor’s office request for an official revision to fiscal 2026, with members reminded that any estimate adopted now would not bind the December official estimates. Staff from S&P Global walked through three forecast scenarios—control, optimistic, and pessimistic—based on recent federal tax changes, tariffs, and other policy developments, emphasizing that the outlook remains highly uncertain. Under the control scenario, the presentation projected below-trend real GDP growth of 1.8% in fiscal 2026, slowing to 1.5% by fiscal 2028, with unemployment peaking around 4.5% and the Federal Reserve cutting rates three times to a long-run range of about 2.75% to 3%. The optimistic scenario assumed lower effective tariffs, stronger growth, and better labor and housing outcomes, while the pessimistic scenario assumed a broader trade war, higher effective tariffs, faster deportations, weaker employment and consumer spending, and unemployment rising to about 6.3%. Speakers also noted that the forecast was prepared before later BLS revisions and that recent data on inventories and AI-related investment made the recent quarters look unusually volatile. Members discussed how the current fiscal 2026 outlook compared with earlier assumptions and noted that the eventual revenue revision may be smaller than the spread between the optimistic and pessimistic economic scenarios. The governor’s office and committee members also reviewed sector-specific impacts, including manufacturing, housing, light vehicle production, exports, and consumer sentiment, with particular concern about Kentucky’s auto and housing-related industries. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So even though we are using something from the rainy day fund, right, you subtract from our current $292
• <03:33:06.960> you<03:33:07.200> subtract<03:33:08.000> from<03:33:08.239> our
• you subtract from our current 292 right?
• you subtract from our current 292 million,<03:33:10.560> this<03:33:11.000> 256<03:33:12.000

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting was a House budget briefing focused on the overall state budget and the first of three divisions. The presenter reviewed the size and structure of the budget, noting that the state had eliminated the interest and dividends tax and still balanced the budget. He explained the major spending categories in the general fund and total budget, emphasizing that health and human services and education remain the largest areas, while transportation is largely self-funded. He also walked through the revenue picture, including business taxes, insurance taxes, court fees, communications taxes, and Medicaid recoveries, and said the remaining interest and dividends tax revenue reflected late payments from prior assessments. Members asked about the size of the tax cut from eliminating the interest and dividends tax, federal funding stability, and why Medicaid was being reduced if federal support was expected to remain steady. The response was that the lost revenue would have been about $200 million absent repeal, and that the budget gap was addressed through many small cuts across departments. On federal funds, the presenter said most aid is tied to multi-year grants and that core programs such as Medicare and Medicaid were expected to remain relatively stable, though some federal reductions could occur. He also said some agency reductions came from eliminating long-vacant, funded positions and from expected lapses. The discussion then moved into Division One, which covers smaller and miscellaneous agencies. The division made cuts to the governor’s office, eliminated a temporary position at the Governor’s Commission on Disability, reduced Department of Information Technology spending through a back-of-budget cut, and found savings in Administrative Services. It also delayed maintenance at the Sununu Youth Services Center, stopped advertising for paid family medical leave, changed retiree health insurance funding, and consolidated several personnel-related boards into one. The division eliminated the Commission on Aging and the Office of the Child Advocate, made a temporary special education advocate position permanent, reduced the Secretary of State’s budget, kept municipal rooms-and-meals distributions flat, and made changes to the retirement system, including $55 million to improve Group 2 retirement benefits and a new retirement structure for future state hires. The judicial branch was also asked to find savings and received two additional judges because of expected caseload increases from other eliminations.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thanks to these services, Frankie and Magdalene are learning to read, write, spell, add, subtract, learn
• spell<00:59:45.000> add learning to read write spell add learning to read write spell add subtract
• 46.440> learn<00:59:46.880> geography<00:59:47.559> of<00:59:47.760> New subtract
• learn geography of New subtract learn geography of New Hampshire<00:59:48.440> New<00:59:48.640

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Education Policy and Administration Committee heard testimony on HB 222, which would repeal the requirement that a chartered public school and the resident school district sign a memorandum of understanding on how students with disabilities will receive special education services. The prime sponsor, Rep. Peggy Balboni, said the bill was requested by the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators and the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She argued that federal and state law already require districts to provide FAPE and that the MOU requirement has created extra work, legal costs, and delays without improving services. She said many MOUs remain unsigned, but students are still receiving services and complaint numbers have not changed. Rep. Mooney also supported repeal, calling the MOU duplicative and impractical because IEPs and 504 plans already govern services. Testimony from Jane B. Brulu of the special education administrators’ association and Beth McLure of the charter schools alliance echoed that view, saying the MOU has not helped students, has added hours of work and legal fees, and has mostly been a source of disputes over funding and service costs. McLure said her school has worked with more than 15 districts and has always been able to reach agreements, though the first year of the requirement took substantial time and money. Committee members asked about the original purpose of the law, unsigned MOUs, and whether disputes could be resolved without the requirement. A representative from the Department of Education said the MOU was originally proposed to address reports that some students were not getting services on time and to provide some oversight, but the department has no authority to order charter schools or districts to agree and no appeal process if they cannot. The department also said it does not currently audit charter school special education services because it lacks authority to monitor charter schools directly, and it urged the committee to consider some alternative oversight if the MOU requirement is repealed. The hearing on HB 222 was then closed, and the committee announced it would begin the hearing on HB 699 after a short break.